2:02 pm – Back to coding again. I’m noting that there is a developing consensus. Some participants are saying things such as “all the responses above are very valid,” “nothing to add,” and “there is absolutely no question.”

3:56 pm – For question five, I created a slightly difference coding scheme using one of the following letters as the second character in the code:

a – agree
d – disagree
i – idea

4:53 pm – I’ve completed coding. I’m unsure how to proceed with composing Round 3. I used an outliner to arrange and group codes for Round 2. But there are many more codes for Round 3 and I’m unsure if that approach will work, but I am attempting it to begin with.

5:12 pm – The outline approach appears promising. I also ran a “Count” report in TAMS, which lists all codes and their frequency of appearance. I imported this into a numbers spreadsheet and sorted by the number of appearances. 86 of the 119 codes I’ve used only appear once, so my first two characters (which categorize the codes) are critical in making the information useful. Those characters are driving my organization of the codes in my outliner, which will in turn drive my composition of the round three questions. It is already clear that my six Round 3 questions will focus on these topics:

The outline went well and I think I’m ready to compose new summaries (tomorrow). I still wonder about how best to approach the questions. Perhaps I will ask them what statement they disagree with (or agree with) most strongly and why.

This entry was posted by Mark Wagner, Ph.D.
on Wednesday, January 23rd, 2008 at 6:00 pm and is filed under Dissertation.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.